I'd say where we have introduced a regression in the latest release it
wouldn't hurt to have a "known issues" page, or similar, which links to
commits or other information about how to patch or work around an issue.
I see no reason to make a new release unless we think the issue is
sufficiently serious and/or affects large numbers of users.
Matt
On 04/04/18 09:32, Richard Levitte wrote:
> The attached report talks about CPP being required, but that's not the
> intention. Rather, this is an unnoticed mistake when cherry-picking
> from master to 1.1.0.
>> The fix itself is easy (just add a line saying 'CPP=$(CC) -E'), and
> that's not what I'm here to talk about, but rather how we want to act
> in cases like this. Do we make a new release? Do we create an
> official patch? Do we make a link to the corrective github PR?
> My own sense is that we should put up something, and it should be
> visible on our download page and in our source archives.
>> Whatever we decide should become policy.
>> Cheers,
> Richard
>>>> _______________________________________________
> openssl-project mailing list
>openssl-project at openssl.org>https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project>